Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An unnamed man flying from Nigeria to New York City found out he was added to a no-fly list somewhere above the Atlantic Ocean, when the plane stopped to refuel in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Officials won't say what he did or why he was added to the list after he had already boarded a flight. He was not immediately charged with a crime and Customs and Border Protection will only say that he is a "potential person of interest." From the article: "The man, a citizen of Gambia, was not on the no-fly list when he boarded the aircraft in Dakar, Senegal, said a US official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly."

Even before things descended to the level of poking fun at RyanAir, I don't think that anyone one was proposing giving away a liferaft. Those things are expensive!

"Disembarking early, sir? Would you like to consider our life-raft rental service. It's very competitively priced. We can also provide insurance against you not surviving your disembarkation, and against not being found for 3 weeks."Besides, I wouldn't be surprised to find that no (reputable) airline owns any liferaf

It's the emergency slide that deploys if you open the door that would work. The only problem is that there's no way to actually deploy the slide, board it, and THEN cut it loose while the plane is underway because the wind would rip it right off at those speeds.

Perhaps this case is an exception, but I have always fest that the no-fly list is one of the dumbest ideas out there. In a criminal case (which terrorism and conspiracy are) you do not want to let the suspect know you are on to them until the cops come to arrest them. With the watch lists, all a sleeper has to do is take a commercial flight, and they will immediately know if they are on a watch list.

Not to mention the civil liberties abuses that result when someone is denied the right to travel (by air) with due process, no notification, and no effective means of appeal.

Perhaps this case is an exception, but I have always fest that the no-fly list is one of the dumbest ideas out there. In a criminal case (which terrorism and conspiracy are) you do not want to let the suspect know you are on to them until the cops come to arrest them.

Considering the main point of the no-fly list is to prevent suicide bombings, combined with the fact that it's hard to arrest a corpse, I think the preventative method is a better choice.

(I am in no way endorsing the no-fly list, just using some sarcastic humor to point out the part the parent missed)

Considering the main point of the no-fly list is to prevent suicide bombings, combined with the fact that it's hard to arrest a corpse, I think the preventative method is a better choice.

Except for the fact that the percentage of suicide bombers vs the number of passenger miles flown is so ridiculously small it shouldn't warrant such a heavy handed response. Even if we removed all the security from airports there probably wouldn't be that many more incidents if any. Also within minutes of the 9/11 attacks when people realized that hi-jackers weren't taking planes for joy rides to Cuba anymore; the passengers of planes started to keep an eye out for suspicious behavior and started reacting to threats. Starting with Flight 93 planes have already secured themselves; had the Flight 93 passengers realized sooner what the cooks with box cutters were doing they may have even been able to safely land their plane.

"Except for the fact that the percentage of suicide bombers vs the number of passenger miles flown is so ridiculously small it shouldn't warrant such a heavy handed response. Even if we removed all the security from airports there probably wouldn't be that many more incidents if any"

I disagree with your assessment. Hijackings to Cuba were in the vogue until security made them pretty much pointless. Suicide bombers don't actually want to anywhere but heaven, so any destination for the plane is both irrelevant and moot, though you could make the point that U.S. bound planes would be more popular than others.

Actually, try leaving your front door open at home, and announcing that fact down at the local coffee shop. repeatedly. See how that lack of security works for ya. Haven't seen anyone scratching at your door lately, have you? Must not be any real problem.

And suicide bombers are at least as motivated as your local meth head getting a cuppa at Starbucks.

And suicide bombers are at least as motivated as your local meth head getting a cuppa at Starbucks.

Since when could meth heads afford Starbucks?

On a more serious note, your post does nothing to address the fact that the no-fly list is a waste of time and money as a preventive measure, because it catches orders of magnitude more innocent flyers (including one US Senator) than actual terrorist suspects.

And we now have security. The locked and reinforced doors to the cabin. That's what would have completely prevented 9/11, and with that the only thing we realistically need is explosive/bioweapon sniffing.

So I'm sure you'll ignore this as it doesn't fit into your dogma, but I live in a pretty rough neighborhood. I never thought so until the police told me that there is more crime in my area than in what I thought was the bad part of town. There is a soup kitchen at the end of my street and a pretty much non-stop stream of homeless people wondering between there and the library (apparently the library is a convenient place where young girls can be found).

Except for the fact that the percentage of suicide bombers vs the number of passenger miles flown is so ridiculously small it shouldn't warrant such a heavy handed response.

I agree completely. Proactive responses are pointless, everyone knows that! That's why I've been working hard over the last year to convince my city that we don't need a fire department, smoke alarms, or all those silly building-codes designed to prevent fires. We have so few people die in fires that there's clearly no way to justify such over-the-top policies.

I never said three twin towers. But you forget that more than 2 buildings were destroyed that day. These videos are alittle tinfoil hat but just look at the info and not the spin How did WTC 7 collapse? [youtube.com] also there is Incriminating evidence [youtube.com] and finally atleast watch this one and make your decision on if the building fell because of the fires and not something more controlled 4409 unseen footage [youtube.com]

So, if I'm understanding your premise, the mysterious conspiracy which destroyed the Twin Towers through some method other than the goddamned 767's full of jet fuel that struck them also decided to destroy the WTC 7 building across the street despite it not being hit directly by anything for... what purpose exactly? Did they just have some extra explosives left over and didn't know what else to do with them?

I also like how you refer the conclusions of pretty much every structural engineer who examined the events as "spin". Because of course the building couldn't have fallen due to damage and uncontrolled fires from two of the largest skyscrapers in the world collapsing right next to it - that's what they *want* you to think!

I'm not saying some elements of the government and intelligence services didn't take advantage of the events for their own goals afterwards, or couldn't have theoretically been involved in letting them happen in the first place (however unlikely), but if you can't accept that just maybe being hit by giant metal tubes full of liquid specifically designed for combustion in full view of hundreds of witnesses might be a reason for the structural collapse of some buildings, there's not much point in attempting to hold a rational conversation with you.

Also, random videos on youtube are not generally a particularly reliable source of information.

The whole Truthers movement is full of such stupidity I don't even know where to start, honestly.

Look, someone wants to premise a monstrous government conspiracy to fly airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon, and (not) the White House, okay. The Bush administration is not exactly known for...truthfulness in reasons to go to war, and it's something I can conceive of Cheney setting up, although it would be hard to keep quiet.

What I can't conceive of is a conspiracy to bring down WTC 7 (Why?), or them shipping exp

Considering the main point of the no-fly list is to prevent suicide bombings,

No, the main point of the no fly list is:(1) to present the appearance of "doing something" about terrorism without any accountability for actually doing anything (i.e., security theater), and(2) to get people used to tolerating arbitrary and unaccountable deprivations of liberty without due process.

Its probably more successful at the latter than the former, as most people don't seem to be fooled into thinking it actually provides

Would you rather they enforce a no-fly list for "people of interest" (often because they attended terrorist training camps, or that we have to remove yet another piece of clothing in the airport for security theater?

And far bigger than either of those are conditions related to diet: heart disease and diabetes in particular. If we were serious about saving American lives, Ronald McDonald would be the first on the no-fly list.

There is no stated reason for getting on the no fly list. You are not allowed to ask why you are on it and you are not allowed to challenge it. There are babies on the list. Dead people are on the list. How the hell did they attend a terrorist training camp?

Yea, and then we can force all americans to convert to Muslim religions and eliminate democracy. There will ALWAYS be reasons to terrorize us.

Ya know, I disagree pretty strongly with many policies of the US government. Yet that never inspires me to blow stuff up. That's probably because the violence the government engages in overseas never directly touches my life. Persuasion and political activism are much more appealing than terrorism to most people, when there is no violence to incite them to reciprocal violence.

However, I suspect I would feel an awful, awful lot more malicious & violent if an American bombing raid had blown up my family. Maybe if we stopped squandering our national wealth and moral authority -- if we still have any of either left -- on wars of aggression, then folks in other countries wouldn't feel so motivated to attack us.

That would be if your actual goal was to capture terrorists, convince them to talk, capture more terrorists, etc. If on the other hand your goal is to harass people who are a color or religion you don't like, then they're very very effective. And the best part is that through these petty annoyances you convince more of them that the US is in fact the great evil that should be wiped off the face of the earth, making sure that no matter how many bad guys you capture you're never going to be out of a job.

you have no right to travel by air. even to petition your government. the federal court claimed you have available alternatives that are "just as good". apparently we're expected to get on a horse and take 3-5 months traveling from the west coast to the east coast. it was good enough in the 1800s, the last time the judges did it, dammit. and you Hawaiians and Alaskans? Better work on that side stroke. (It takes ID for Alaskans to go through Canada.)

it was good enough in the 1800s, the last time the judges did it, dammit.

Now, now...no making fun of the barely living fossils that make up our Supreme Court just because they're a bunch of clueless ninnies who are so far out of touch with modern reality. Our founding fathers thought it would be a good idea they be appointed for life, and just because history has shown that to be a terrible idea does not mean we're going to change it any time soon!

Not to mention the errors made in adding names to the list. A coworkers 6 year old son was on the list, they discovered this while checking in to board a flight while on vacation. The airport officials had the good common sense to realize a 6 year old kid isn't a terrorist and let them all board the flight. Now they have to go through channels to get the kid removed from the NFL.

You're making the false assumption that the no fly list is there to prevent terrorism.

Think about this for 10 seconds. If you had evidence that someone was going to blow up an airplane then you should arrest the fucker. Just as if you had evidence that someone was going to rob a bank you'd arrest him.If you have NO evidence that someone was going to commit a crime then you shouldn't do shit and just let him on his way.

The no fly list says "we have no evidence regarding you, so you're not a threat in the eyes of the LAW, but we're going to restrict your freedom anyway." It's shit like this, the removal of our freedom for no reason, that seriously warrants armed rebellion against the government.

And what's the whole point of it? You're not a criminal (yet) but have no other restrictions on your life except for being forbidden to use one particular public means of transportation. Big deal. If someone really is a terrorist, being on a no-fly list does nothing to stop them. Nothing. They'll take a train, or a boat, or a car. If they want to blow up bridge or a building they won't need an airplane to do it.Being on a no-fly list is not the same as being forbidden from entering the country. Many

That remark alone shows your ignorance. There is no "right to travel (by air)

Not to split hairs here. But there is no right to FLY a plane. Just as there is no right to DRIVE a car.

I find it rather interesting its reached the point where you are justifying that someone should be denied the 'priviledge' of riding in one too. Do you support depriving someone the "priviledge" of being a *passenger* on a car or bus or boat (including ferries) too?

It is a privilege for those who meet certain conditions.

And those conditions are what exactly? As it stands right now, you can't be on a plane if you have brownish skin and a name vaguely similiar to a guy who the FBI thinks might have known someone who attended an event suspected of being a terrorist recruiting event... whether this other person completely unrelated to you actually even joined, assuming it was actually a terrorist recruiting event.

If they cannot meet those conditions and, perhaps, more, then they cannot get on a plane.

An e woods recently ran a red light. That's dangerous and could kill someone. As a result I think anyone named 'e woods' 'e. woods' 'ed woods' 'ed wood' should be prohibited from driving a car. Further, I think anyone by this name should also be prohibited from RIDING in a car... they might overpower the driver and kill someone.

I guess you don't meet the conditions to get in a car anymore. Never mind a plane.

Don't complain to me though, you don't have a right to be a car. Its just a privilege. One you don't meet the conditions for.

Sorry, but there most certainly *IS* a right to travel by air. It is one of the unenumerated rights, protected by the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The government can only deny us this right if they have a power to do so, granted to the government by the people, by means of the Constitution. I am not presently able to find the section of the Constitution that gives the government the powe

And people wonder why airline travel is down in the US. Or, to the US for that matter.

I'll give you an example of why airline travel is down in the US:

I flew from San Diego to San Francisco last weekend and got pulled aside because of some ham radio equipment (two small VHF hand-held transceivers) in my carry-on bag. I explained what they were while the TSA guy ripped everything out of my bag and ran it all through the X-ray machine again. Then I explained it all again to his supervisor. Took about a half hour but, "fortunately," my flight was delayed two hours so I was okay.

Any other old greybeards out there remember when flying was fun? An adventure, rather than a big PITA only slightly better than traveling on a Greyhound bus?

Yeah, when I was a kid, flying was an adventure and a lot of fun. Now it's a PITA. It's been several years since I seriously considered a vacation that involved flying. I'd rather drive. If I have to fly to do it, odds are I'm not going to do it. If my attitude spreads, the airlines are in trouble.

I'd be surprised if security theater accounts form more than 0.5% of the decrease in domestic air travel. People just don't care. Air travel is down domestically because prices are up and theres a recession. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now tourism may have suffered because the US is perceived (accurately?) to have become less friendly for foreigners - but the airport rigmarole is only tangentially related to even that.

It's not just people refusing to have their private parts scanned as a matter of principle. It's also people who decide it's simply too much of a headache, with the airport security and the customs forms only being subconsciously incorporated into their thoughts. When I'm flying, I'm always, in the back of my mind, afraid. Not of terrorists, who kill less air travellers than bad weather, but of the security. I'm afraid of being detained for hours because I lost some critical document or made a mistake in fi

I'd be surprised if security theater accounts form more than 0.5% of the decrease in domestic air travel. People just don't care.

Since it has substantially increased door-to-door travel times when their is commercial air travel anywhere in the process, and since travel time is the big selling point of air travel over other forms of travel, I suspect its a much bigger factor than that, particular for shorter flights.

Do you go alone? How much does that 6 hour flight cost? $200? $300? Does that include your bags?

See, I make 8-10 hour drives 6-8 times a year, but I do it because it's cheaper, especially when I'm traveling with someone as I usually am. 8 hours in a car and it's only marginally less convenient than flying - and not because of security. A trip that takes about six hours to drive takes what 4 to fly including driving to and from the airport, waiting to check in, getting there early, waiting to pick up y

I was at the airport waiting to give a vistor a ride. There had been a story on the news the night before about some new device that scans your hands for explosive residue. It had some sort of pad that was wiped over the skin.I wanted to know if the device uses a fluid because of allergies.

It was very slow at the moment and because there was a bored TSA employee sitting at a station to make sure nobody went the wrong way at security, I walked up to her and asked about the device.

Absolutely right! I haven't flown since pre-September 2001, and have no plans of doing so anytime soon, or in the future. I'd rather drive then deal with the security theater and the possibility that I'd be harassed, even though I have nothing to hide or have done nothing wrong. I've heard way too many stories of innocent people being detained for just having a similar name to someone "of interest".. I'll drive.

This country is, funnily enough, actually called "The Gambia" [wikipedia.org], not Gambia, and it's got a really funny shape [google.com] that follows the course of the Gambia River. A pretty interesting place, actually.

Passenger Nbaye Beye said the man, who appeared to be in his late 20s, appeared nervous when approached by a U.S. agent but got off the plane quietly.

Really, someone who was announced by the captain of the flight, to everyone onboard, that he was a "serious security risk", got nervous when approached by what could be assumed to be an armed federal agent???

Yeah. Because I NEVER get nervous after being called a serious security risk and being approached by a federal officer...

Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not the "no-fly" lists serve a legitimate purpose (they don't), what should they have done? If information indicating a particular person may be dangerous comes in while someone is already in transit, should they have just said "Damn, if we had been a little quicker we wouldn't let you in, but you beat the buzzer. We suspect you're a terrorist, but since you had already left you can come in this time. But next time, forget it!"

There shouldn't be a "no fly" list at all. There should, however, be a list of people for whom more rigorous screening is mandatory, e.g. the "you can go ahead and fly right after you submit to this full body cavity search" list.

No, we've already had the "the shoe bomber" and "the crotch bomber"... the next one to attempt to blow the shit out of a plane will be "the ass bomber". Beware of anyone with a fuse sticking out of his ass... Fortunately, most suicide bombers couldn't find their ass with both hands, so this is not really much of a threat.